War on Youth

A New Year’s Resolution For Our Youth
The View from the Middle

I would like to suggest a New Year’s resolution for the youth in our country, and that is to build their awareness of what is happening in our world today. I know it is tempting for our 18 to 39 year olds to plow through life with their heads down as I did back in the 70’s. I was indestructible. I was busy working, raising a family and just enjoying life.
But I was the product of “The Greatest Generation” as described by Tom Brokaw in his wonderful book of the same name. That unselfish generation sacrificed for their children (me) by fighting the Second World War, by working hard and saving and by building an America that was better for me than it was for them.
However, that great generation seems to have spawned America’s most selfish generation, which is now in Washington running our country into the ground. This generation (my generation!) is making decisions today that will profoundly impact your lives and it is not doing it with you in mind. Let me give you three examples.
First, our leaders in Washington are spending money like there is no tomorrow, and there may not be if things don’t change. Our debt, which will become your debt, has just topped 17 trillion dollars, and our President hardly talks about it. He now says that “closing the wealth gap” is more important than our debt and deficits!
While I believe that he should be working to close that gap, why would the government have to spend any of your money to accomplish this? Unfortunately, our current administration seems to believe that government spending is the solution to every problem. But you must realize that every dollar we borrow will be passed on to you for servicing or payback. WE are avoiding our responsibilities at your expense.
The second example is Social Security. In 1950 there were 16 people contributing to Social Security for every one beneficiary. Today that ratio is down to 3 to 1, and in just 17 years it will be down to 2 to 1. For years SS was bringing in more money to the government than it was paying out, and what was our government doing with that money? Spending it, of course. In the last three years, however, SS has paid out more than it took in. It is already in the red!
This, however, is just a foreshadowing of worse things to come. Social Security is projected to become insolvent in just 20 years. That means that if you are even in your 40’s, SS will NOT be there for you. So, if you hear politicians say that SS is “just fine”, that means it is just fine for them, not you.
And now we have Obamacare. The President and congress have made this program sound like the greatest thing since sliced bread. We are going to insure millions more people, cover pre-existing conditions, eliminate life time benefit limits and allow children to stay on their parents’ plans until they are 26. That sounds great, but I’m sure you’ve you heard the old adage that “there is no such thing as a free lunch”? Guess who is paying for all of this – you are!
Obamacare is all about transferring money, payments, wealth (whatever) from one group to another, and you are the major target. In fact, you are the KEY to this whole thing working. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) must get young and healthy people (you) to pay for older and sicker people (me). Just go onto the healthcare.gov site and take a look for yourself. Your premium costs and deductibles will take your breath away, while it’s doing the same to your money.
The point is, you literally can’t afford to ignore what is going on in Washington today. Your lives are being mortgaged by the “me” generation simply because our representatives in Washington refuse to make tough choices today. You need to use your influence, even if that is just your vote, to save your future.
You need representation in Washington that supports a balanced budget today, not in 30, 40 or 50 years. You need people who are willing to reform entitlements today so that they will still be there for you when you need them. Finally, you need Obamacare to go away. You need no-nonsense solutions like tort reform, selling insurance across state lines and Health Saving Accounts (HSA’s) to bring down health care costs without sticking you with the bill.

Obamacare - Force vs Choice

Force vs Choice

The View from the Middle

I have to admit that the extreme liberals have succeeded in making me feel guilty with their “fix it, don’t nix it” message when it comes to Obamacare.  Over the last couple of months I racked my brain to find ways to improve this law vs just eliminating it.  After going through a case of Band-Aids, a mile of duct tape and a ton of spackle, I concluded that a fix was not possible because the law has a fatal flaw.

What makes this law unsalvageable is that, at its roots, Obamacare hinges on “force” instead of “choice”.  This deleterious defect is so fundamental to the law’s spirit that it truly does render it unredeemable.  Americans, and I think all people, would always prefer choice to arm twisting, however Obamacare is chock full of coercion.

And this coercion starts with the basic aim of the law, which is to provide health care (actually health insurance) to all people.  Obamacare accomplishes this, not by providing Americans more options at more reasonable prices to, but by forcing them through penalty of a fine (sorry, tax) to buy health insurance. 

Believe it or not, there are some people who actually “choose” not to buy health insurance.  I personally don’t recommend that, but then I shouldn’t have the right to force them, should I?  This desire for choice is so strong in America that even after Obamacare has been law for 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office projects that America will still have 30 million uninsured. 

Obamacare (let’s just start calling it the Affordable Care Act or ACA) also forces people to purchase coverage that they may not want or need.  For example, my wife and I are over 60 and don’t plan to have any more children.  Despite our lack of interest in maternity coverage and the fact that we are physically incapable of having children, the ACA forces us to carry it.  I’ll let you struggle to answer the question – Why?

I would prefer a buffet of coverage choices so that I can construct the plan I feel is right for me.  I may want a larger deductible.  I may want a lower co-pay.  I may not want pediatric services (another ACA requirement).  What I do want is “choice”. 

The ACA also forces doctors to do things they don’t like.  First and foremost, it tells doctors what they can charge for certain services.  This can push doctors to eliminate tests and or treatments for which they don’t get fairly reimbursed.  This will also control their income and in effect make them employees of the state.  Do we really want to get our health care from civil servants?  Envision your doctor’s office looking like the DMV.  You become a number instead of a patient.

Personally, I want my doctor to make decisions on my treatment based on what he or she thinks is right for me.  I want doctors to charge what they think is appropriate given their costs.  If a doctor charges too much, I can always choose to go to a different doctor. 

Finally, the ACA controls the Insurance industry beyond all reasonableness.  They dictate what insurance companies have to cover and what they can charge and even how much profit they can make.  That sounds suspiciously like government health care executed through a compliant insurance industry.

I’ll trust the free market and my power of “choice” to deliver quality insurance for me and my family.  I would also remind everyone that “control” always sounds like a good idea for “the other guy”.  Wait until our impersonal, unfeeling, despotic government wants to constrain your liberty or even your pursuit of happiness.  Remember, a government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.

But don’t feel too bad for Insurance companies.  YOU are their insurance policy.  If they don’t make a sufficient profit in the first three years, the government will subsidize them.  And when our politicians promise to subsidize the insurance companies, they aren’t committing their personal funds to do so.  They don’t have any money.  They will be spending YOUR money, the final insult to all of us.

What health care and health insurance needs is competition and choice.  Removing the profit incentive and eliminating choice simply leads to inefficiency, inferior service and higher prices. 

Profit, is it a Bad Thing?

Is Profit a Bad Thing?

The View from the Middle

The incentive for profit is what makes the USA the best country in the world.  Through the 2010 campaigns I heard politicians struggle to explain how jobs are created when that is actually a simple concept in my mind.  The incentive for profit is what creates jobs.  Ingenious people come up with ideas for a product or a service that they can sell to other people and make a profit.  With the revenue from that product or service they employ people who have to produce that product or supply that service to the public. 

These employees will make salaries and pay taxes to our local, state and federal government.  In fact, these salaries paid out will often exceed the profit taken.  For example, Procter & Gamble, the company I used to work for, pays out significantly more in salaries and benefits to its employees than it makes in profit.  For many small businesses, that ratio can be even higher.  In addition, P&G has to cover all of the manufacturing and marketing costs associated with its products, which, of course, provides an income for thousands of others in their supplier network.  Without the profit incentive, however, there would be no Procter & Gamble, no salaries, no taxes paid by its employees and, of course, none of the products that they produce

Then I started thinking about what else profit does besides giving people the incentive to create jobs, and it hit me that profit is what delivers efficiency and innovation in the free market system.  If a business can’t make a profit, it will eventually cease to exist.  Every business must deliver its product as efficiently as possible so as to keep its price down and yet deliver profit for the owners or its shareholders.

Every business also has to make its products competitive.  They must constantly consider ways to improve their products so that they can compete in the market.  So, it is the desire for profit that drives both efficiency and innovation.  It is a simple but powerful concept and driving force in capitalism. 

But there is one thing that throws a monkey wrench into this beautiful system – a monopoly.  A monopoly eliminates competition and suppresses the need for both efficiency and innovation.  If you only have one source for a particular product, that company can charge whatever they want for it.  They don’t need to be efficient and don’t need to improve their product, and the eventual loser is the consumer.  That is why our government is supposed to protect us from monopolies.  So, just to be sure we are all following the message here, profit is a good thing, delivering efficiency and innovation, and monopolies are bad things, destroying competition and punishing consumers.

So, what do you think a government take over of health care will deliver to the people of the United States – a monopoly (a bad thing) that doesn’t have to make a profit (a good thing)?  It is the worst of both worlds, and a recipe for outrageous cost increases, poor service and the death of innovation in this critically important industry?  And isn’t this exactly what the federal government is famous for delivering?

For evidence, look no further than the Post Office, our public education system or go to your local Department of Motor Vehicles office.  While there are a couple of places where this set up makes sense (like the military and law enforcement), government takeover of any industry spells disaster for it, and if anything, we should be moving in the opposite direction.  Health Care definitely needs to improve, but in my opinion, the last thing we need is a government take over of the entire industry.

Man vs. The State - Truth vs. Deceit

Man vs. The State – Truth vs. Deceit

The View from the Middle

In 1946 a young lieutenant in the Navy reserve and veteran of WWII in the Pacific gave a speech in Boston on Independence Day.  He stressed that, “The right of the individual against the State has ever been one of our most cherished political principles.”  This young man and war hero was no other than John F. Kennedy. 

This was a core belief that Kennedy embraced throughout his life, even to his untimely death in Dallas.  He continually warned Americans that we must be ever vigilant not to consign our “great problems to the all-absorbing hands of the great Leviathan – the state.”  Kennedy believed in the power of the people and the private sector to solve our problems.

Whether the problem is unemployment, poverty or health care he would clearly caution us NOT to turn over control to the government.  However, this is the fundamental problem we are beginning to see with Obamacare.

The current website problem is truly only the tip of the iceberg.  I was surprised by the absolute collapse of the site.  I’m assuming it will be fixed, but it does begin to suggest what kind of service we might expect later as we try to access services and confirm or question claims and payments.  If you thought it was difficult dealing with insurance companies before now, wait until you interject the government between you and them.  Let the nightmare begin.

As suggested above, the first real issue with Obamacare is one of personal choice.  The government will now decide what coverage all Americans must carry.  All plans must include the 10 essential benefits outlined in the law.  That sounds great, right, until you dig in a little. 

My wife and I, for example, are over 60 and have no children at home, yet we MUST carry Maternity and Pediatric coverage.  What if we don’t want this coverage?  Too bad!  We have no choice.  This over-insuring is needed, however, as part of the financial shenanigans essential to make this plan work.

And when you hear the word “subsidy”, beware.  It sounds wonderful, doesn’t it?  We are lead to believe that insurance companies are simply charging needy people less for their policies.  Dream on.  “Subsidy” just means that taxpayer money (YOUR money) is being spent to reduce these costs.  Barack Obama isn’t writing a personal check for these subsidies.  The government has no money of its own.  YOU are paying for these subsidies through your taxes.  Let’s just be honest.

I also predict that there is much more disappointment to come in the area of services.  Since the government does not have a profit incentive that requires it to be efficient and innovative or go out of business, it will deliver what it has become famous for delivering - high costs and poor services.  And don’t forget that you and I are the government’s sugar daddy.

The second real victim in this charade is “the truth”.  For years the President has been saying, “if you like your plan, you can keep it.  Period!”  I have heard estimates of 10 to 129 million people who will have their policies canceled as a result of Obamacare regulations.  This will make it very difficult for these people to “keep” these plans.

He also promised that premiums would go down on average $2,500 a year, yet logic and research have suggested quite the opposite is likely. 

And now we have politicians who are actually defending this dishonesty.  Some admit that the President lied, but suggest this is acceptable because it helped advance a cause they support.  At best, supporters agree that he mislead America, but still give him a pass for the same reason. 

Are we really willing to accept this new lower standard where duplicity is acceptable if it advances your cause.  What if lying advances “the other guy’s” cause?  If we embrace deceit, greed and dependence instead of truth, compassion and personal responsibility we will have a fundamentally transformed America.  Is that the picture you envisioned when the President used those words during his campaign?

Finally, the reality is that this law may never have even passed if the President had told the truth.  In 1994, Hillarycare never even got into committee because insurance companies ran ads warning that many of Americans would lose their policies.  Throw in honest projections of the costs and the virtual elimination of choice, and I would guarantee it.  I think this is a fair question for any congressman or woman who voted for this law in 2010.  Given what we know now would they vote for the ACA today?  I would hope they at least have 20-20 hindsight!

JFK - VFM First Practitioner

View From the Middle – First Practitioner

The View from the Middle

As I sit here on November the 22^nd, the 50-year anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, I ponder the argument that has been raging almost since his death.  Was JFK a liberal or a conservative?  In fact, you could contend that this debate started before Kennedy was even in Congress and continued through his Presidency.

Why do people care so much?  It is because JFK was so charismatic, so engaging and arguably so effective, and everyone wants his image aligned with their position, including me.  The fact that this argument continues is a strong suggestion that JFK was a centrist, in the middle.  Let’s look at the facts.

JFK was more than a believer in tax reduction; he was an advocate of tax reform.  In1960, he campaigned on the idea that a creative tax cut would “(create) more jobs and income and eventually more revenue” for the government.  He also said, “the present patchwork of special (tax) provisions…distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities.” 

Kennedy’s tax plan moved from theory to reality under the Johnson administration, with minor changes, and led to spectacular growth in the US economy.  In 1964 (the year after his death), our GDP (Gross Domestic Product) grew at a 7.4% annual rate, followed by 8.4% in 1965 and 9.5% growth in 1966.  This compares to our annual growth from 2010 to 2013 of about 2%.

But, was the President willing to incur deficits in order to advance these tax cuts?  Let’s not guess, but consider Kennedy’s own words to define his position.  In 1960 he said, “We should seek a balanced budget over the course of the business cycle with surpluses during good times more than offsetting deficits which may be incurred during slumps.”

Again, the actual results of his plan weren’t recognized until after his death, but, especially by current standards, they were impressive.  From 1964 to 1966 our deficits totaled just over $10 billion.  Even adjusted for inflation, those deficits would average only about $27 billion per year today.  This compares to President Obama’s lowest one-year deficit of over $700 billion.  I would be willing to declare a $27 billion deficit a de facto balanced budget this day and age.

But what did JFK think about the social issues.  First, he proposed a health insurance program for seniors that eventually became Medicare.  He was careful to qualify, however, that his program was “not a program of socialized medicine… Every person will choose his own hospital and doctor” and would place “responsibility on the employee and the employer, rather than the general taxpayers”.  His compassion for seniors was tempered by his desire to guard freedom of choice for everyone and fiscal responsibility.

He said that abortion would be “repugnant to all Americans.”  Was the President waging a war on women?  Certainly not.  I believe JFK saw abortion for what it is, a tragedy for all concerned.  It is, of course, catastrophic for the child, but it is also terrible for the mother.  If you are unsure of the risks for mothers during and after an abortion, just Google it.  The facts will scare you straight.  I’m confident that JFK would agree with The View From the Middle (VFM) that we all should be fighting to reduce the number of abortions in America.

He was also concerned about civil rights and showed particular concern for the black community as was his brother Robert.  As late as 1963, Kennedy suggested that strengthening the black family and improving their education was the answer to lifting that group up the rungs of the American dream.  He also suggested that the best way to lift that community out of poverty was to deliver more jobs to them and all people that struggled financially.

It is this coalescence of conservative and liberal principles that has Americans of both political parties in a chronic tug-of-war over Kennedy’s ideological alignment.  I say that neither extreme version of the liberal or conservative bases can lay claim to JFK.

He was, to me, an obvious centrist.  He recognized the importance of the compassion and protection side of the Democratic Party while also embracing the fiscal restraint and personal freedom and responsibility of the Republican Party.  We fight over his legacy because he represents the best of both worlds.

Even his famous inaugural snippet leaned both directions at the same time.  “Ask not, what your country can do for you (conservative), ask what you can do for your country (liberal).”

So today, I officially lay claim to the Kennedy heritage.  He was a man with a View From the Middle.  He was a man who saw that the middle is where wisdom can be found, compromise can be forged and progress can be made.